New hope for Biafra?
Sir: Your correspondent, June Gibson of the Commonwealth News Agency (Letters, 21 June) states an important truth when she says that the agitation for the division into more states of the former Eastern Nigeria began more than twenty years ago. It did. And it dates from the imposition of the so-called `Richards Constitution' which came into effect on the 1 January 1947. It was this constitution, imposed without con- sultation with the peoples concerned, which set the stage for the struggle for political power at the centre that was to bedevil the politics of the future Federation of Nigeria and bring about its disintegration.
No one can honestly deny that, over the centuries, the inhabitants of the former Eastern Nigeria have lived and worked happily together, have inter-married and have become both culturally and economi- caliy interdependent. It is noteworthy too, that never in Eastern Nigeria has there been inter-tribal violence such as marred the his- tory of Northern Nigeria in particular. The ties that unite the Ibos to the other ethnic groups of Biafra are human and natural and are vastly stronger than the artificial, political influences that would tend to separate them. The truth of this was im- pressively demonstrated by the staunch sup- port given to the government of Eastern Nigeria during the campaigns of massacre and economic oppression in 1966-67 and by the overwhelming support for the inde- pendence of Biafra. In saying this, I speak from personal experience. As an adminstra- tive officer first in H.M. Colonial Service and latterly in H.M. Overseas Civil Service I have served for twenty years in Eastern Nigeria and Biafra and the greater part of that service has been spent in the Efik and Ibibio areas. I therefore have a natural sympathy for and understanding of the peoples and would do nothing willingly and say nothing—that might be to their dis- advantage.
It will be recalled that a new provincial administration consisting of twenty pro- vinces was established in Eastern Nigeria in 1967 after exhaustive discussions with all ethnic groups and in \accordance with the recommendations of a special committee appointed by the government to advise on the implementation of the new system. I was a member of that committee and the chairman was also a Briton. The committee toured the whole of Eastern Nigeria visiting every province and every new division and, particularly in the minority areas, we found that the new system was welcomed as giv- ing a genuine opportunity to all ethnic groups of having a constructive say in the running of their affairs and in the govern- ment of the Region. Before beginning our task as members of the committee, we were personally briefed by the Governor, Colonel Ojukwu, who emphasised that the government intended that the new pro- vincial administration should be a real and effective decentralisation of government. And the recommendations of the committee were made with the intention of ensuring that this should be so.
The Biafran government intends that the future constitution of independent Biafra shall provide for a unicameral legislature of the Republic with representation by pro- vinces so that each province shall have its own interests safeguarded at the centre and fears—both real and imaginary—of dom- ination and political exploitation of the minorities will be removed.
Finally, it is necessary to recall that the idea of more states on the basis of ethnic affinity is as old as Nigeria itself and on successive occasions from 1914 onwards the British authorities resolutely opposed the division of the country on these lines and insisted on the perpetuation of three incompatible nation-states in an unwieldy and unstable federation in the vain hope of securing for British commercial interests a permanently compliant British client- state. Biafra has repeatedly offered to abide by the results of internationally controlled and supervised plebiscites in all disputed areas of Nigeria and Biafra. Can the apologists for `one Nigeria' say why the Lagos regime refuses to agree to such plebiscites?
E. S. James Glion Arragh, Glen Vine, Crosby, Isle of Man
Sir: Mr Auberon Waugh's article (30 May) on the Nigerian civil war, seems to convey the impression that he is obsessed with his support for the so-called Biafrans and his demand for the British government to stop arms supply to Nigeria's federal Authority, so much that he cannot see the genocidal atrocities committed by the Iho rebels against non-Ibo Nigerians, even before and during the war.
He recalls the alleged mass killing of the Ibos at Benin, Asaba, and Sapele town- ships, the latter being my birthplace, follow- ing the recapture of these places by the federal troops—an incident which did not actually take place at all. But assuming it did, is there any justifiable reason why the Ibos should expel( non-Ibo Midwesterners away from the then Eastern Region of Nigeria while leaving Ibo Midwesterners alone just before the war? Or is Mr Waugh not aware that the lbo soldiers later invaded the Midwest State and occupied it against the wish of the Midwesterners?
During their occupation of that State. the rebels kidnapped and raped over 20,000 women many of whom were pregnant mothers, and their whereabouts are still not known till now. Is Mr Waugh not aware of this too? I wonder if this is the sort of civilised attitude Mr Waugh and those like him admires in the so-called 'Biafrans'.
Like those 'Biafran' sympathisers in this country, it is my fervent desire that the British government cease further supply of arms to Nigeria henceforth. Such will not only stop the British public and Parliament from intruding into Nigeria internal affairs but, it should certainly enable Nigeria to make new and more reliable friends abroad.
M. 0. Ajaro
85 Mayow Road, Sydenham, London SE26 Sir: Miss June Gibson (Letters, 21 June) suggests a very thorough investigation of alleged brutalities in the minority areas of the former Eastern Nigeria. Why stop there? Why not, even at this late stage, col- lect affidavits from inc citizens who wit- nessed the massacres of September and October 1966 from which this war stems? There was no lack of responsible and im- partial eyewitnesses of those events but the British High Commissioner in Lagos literally did not want to know, because it was evi- dence that did not lead to the 'right' solu- tion as he saw it. Also, in order not to wash Commonwealth dirty linen in public. British and Nigerian authorities did not publicise the intensity of the massacres with the result that the world did not know their scale. These two attitudes made it possible for the British government judgment of the situa- tion to produce the greatest injustice of all, which was to define the secessionists as rebels. It is this judgment—'rebels'---so regularly on the lips of our Foreign Secre- tary, that legalises the supply of arms, the blockade, the starvation and the whole of our merciless policy.
The last paragraph of Miss Gibson's letter was probably written in ignorance of the Federal government's advertisement in the Times of early July 1968 which is full of unsubstantiated charges against Biafra including, to select one item, the charge that Northerners were killed in Abakaliki. Since I was living in the town and travelling in the province from August 1966 onwards I state that I neither saw any bloodshed nor heard of any.
A. 7'. Doel
8 Cedar Close, Potters Bar, Herts
Previous page
